I still think she is a joke, but the same was said about Ronald Reagan at one time. Scarier is the the news that Rick Santorum is headed to Iowa in October- he must be running for something.

I see Palin's comments as a real warning , not a lie. It is a very real problem.

I see Palin's comments as a real warning , not a lie. It is a very real problem.

I love Palin. she is a political genious and she has the left terrified and right scratching their heads.

Okay - so how do all of you interpret that section of the proposed health care bill? What is the purpose of medicare consultations?

I agree it is a problem. Perhaps if you stopped watching fox news and listening to talk radio, your problem would go away and you will be able to see a lie for what it is.

Later...Shawn

you misspelled genius, Freedom

Fox news isn't the only news station with these type of reports. There are many, MANY others. You just listed to the big three. Remember the car industry? In America, it used to be controlled by the "Big #". Look at it now. People get tired of the same thing and started to check out the others. Now, the imports are outselling the Big 3 by a vrey large margin.

Maybe if you started to listen to talk radio, instead of the junk music stations all the time, you would at least learn the "Other side" of the story. Right or wrong, when the regular news gives something a 30 second snippit and talk radio gives it an hour, along with public call in time, there's something to be learned.

That part of the bill was authored by Sen. Johnny Isaksen ® of Georgia. The intent is to reimburse private providers under Medicare who discuss end-of-life care with their patients. The idea is to avoid heroic care if an individual doesn't want it. It is not run by the government, is not mandatory and does not limit individual choice.

I think we could have seen this as a helpful, humanistic contribution that came from the Republican side. Honestly, I'm not sure that there is anything sadder than a patient who is put on a ventilator against their will or the sickening feeling of ribs cracking when CPR is done on a frail, terminally individual.

We don't need congress to mess with the end of our life. This is already in effect. It's called a "Living Will". You decide what measures are to be taken if you reach a certain level of life. It is your choice and it has been your choice for AT LEAST the past 20 years.

I love Palin. she is a political genious and she has the left terrified and right scratching their heads.

Fox news isn't the only news station with these type of reports. There are many, MANY others. You just listed to the big three. Remember the car industry? In America, it used to be controlled by the "Big #". Look at it now. People get tired of the same thing and started to check out the others. Now, the imports are outselling the Big 3 by a vrey large margin.

Maybe if you started to listen to talk radio, instead of the junk music stations all the time, you would at least learn the "Other side" of the story. Right or wrong, when the regular news gives something a 30 second snippit and talk radio gives it an hour, along with public call in time, there's something to be learned.

Okay - so how do all of you interpret that section of the proposed health care bill?

What is the purpose of medicare consultations?

Ummm... I think you forgot these: I highly recommend listening to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow. Then you will be well versed in the Lunatic Fringe (be sure to get your rabies shots before tuning in!), and can begin the search for truth somewhere smack dab in the middle. Since my whole family has done Living Wells and Health Directives, these things need to be in place long before you ever think you are going to need them. And it is more to the point to talk with a lawyer about how "unbreakable" your instrument is than to talk with the doctor, unless you need a doctor to explain to you what "life support" measures mean! The Pelosi/Reid/Obama consultations are to get signed DNRs in place. You are kidding yourself if you think any different, since, without these instruments in place, patients would simply receive treatment!

Living will and advanced directive are interchangable terms. I'm guessing you meant to use DNR interchangably as well.

You don't need a doctor and you don't necessarily have to write it down, but one should decid ahead of time and think about having your wishes made clear to the doctors who will care for you. In that regard, a written document left with your current doctor is invaluable.

Many things are more important than politics like this issue. I hope that in our desire to hurt each other politically that we don't confuse people on this issue.

(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `end-of-life planning consultation' means a consultation between the physician and an individual regarding--

(A) the importance of preparing advance directives in case an injury or illness causes the individual to be unable to make health care decisions;

( the situations in which an advance directive is likely to be relied upon;

© the reasons why the development of a comprehensive end-of-life plan is beneficial and the reasons why such a plan should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

(D) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decision maker (health care proxy); and

(E) whether or not the physician is willing to follow the individual's wishes as expressed in an advance directive.

Better if it's written down certainly. A relative might be reluctant to direct the doctors or even over-ride your wishes. Much better to be written down at a time when you are clearly able to decide these things absolutely. Can get a form from a hospital, most doctors offices or the office of the aging.

Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

Let’s call this what it is: A flat-out, vile lie, told for the specific purpose of terrifying

That part of the bill was authored by Sen. Johnny Isaksen ® of Georgia. The intent is to reimburse private providers under Medicare who discuss end-of-life care with their patients. The idea is to avoid heroic care if an individual doesn't want it. It is not run by the government,

QUOTE

[/b]and does not limit individual choice.

I think we could have seen this as a helpful, humanistic contribution that came from the Republican side. Honestly, I'm not sure that there is anything sadder than a patient who is put on a ventilator against their will or the sickening feeling of ribs cracking when CPR is done on a frail, terminally individual.

That part of the bill was authored by Sen. Johnny Isaksen ® of Georgia.

Quote from Isaksen:

"This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don't read the bills," says Isakson in a paper statement. "The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats' bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies," Isakson continued. "My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice."

In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions. This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

It seems there is a reading comprehension problem here. It's not Shakespeare. Let me break it down for you.

1) Section 1233 of HR 3200 (the Advanced Care Planning Consultation) AMMENDS Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (Medicare) - specifically section (s)(2)

2) Section 1861 of the SSA DEFINES services for which Medicare will pay. See for yourself: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1861.htm

3) Section 1233 of HR 3200 ADDS a service - advanced care planning - for which Medicare will pay.

There is no mandate of any service. Got it?

Seems clear to me, if you haven't had a "consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:"

This is mandatory if you have not had a consultation last year, or the year before, or the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that you WILL have a consultation.

Seems clear to me, if you haven't had a "consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:"

This is mandatory if you have not had a consultation last year, or the year before, or the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that you WILL have a consultation.

Read the bill yet?

Read how the hospitals and doctors will be fined for a discharged patient that has to be readmitted for ANY reason, which we all know happens. It also defines the "EXCESS READMISSION RATIO".

READ THE BILL PEOPLE:::
http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Living will and advanced directive are interchangable terms. I'm guessing you meant to use DNR interchangably as well.

You don't need a doctor and you don't necessarily have to write it down, but one should decid ahead of time and think about having your wishes made clear to the doctors who will care for you. In that regard, a written document left with your current doctor is invaluable.

Many things are more important than politics like this issue. I hope that in our desire to hurt each other politically that we don't confuse people on this issue.

Before we move on to a different subject, let's resolve what we started.

Advanced Planning Consultations are not mandatory for a patient. Are we good?

No we are not good. This is not the final version, and there are several bill floating around. And the Senate version is not in release. Hmmmm.

Before we move on to a different subject, let's resolve what we started.

Advanced Planning Consultations are not mandatory for a patient. Are we good?

Excuse me. This is why you need a LAWYER consult and not a DOCTOR consult. They are not interchangeable. One addresses the end of life, the directive allows you to specify what medical procedures you do want vs. what you do not. Want fluids continued but not food? You can specify that! Want to specify which procedures you want vs. ones you never want (I will take dialysis, but skip the breathing intubation, check!) And you most certainly do need to write it down, especially if you do not have next of kin living in town. You need to file the documents with your doctor, and keep a copy for yourself, and provide a copy to your named medical power of attorney. Now I see why you are in favor, skeptic. It would help if you educate yourself and get those legal documents in place before you find yourself beyond the capability to do so. Some lawyer's offices have the forms available for free in their waiting rooms. Meanwhile, seems you are the one confusing people. No we are not good. This is not the final version, and there are several bill floating around. And the Senate version is not in release. Hmmmm.

Excuse me. This is why you need a LAWYER consult and not a DOCTOR consult. They are not interchangeable. One addresses the end of life, the directive allows you to specify what medical procedures you do want vs. what you do not. Want fluids continued but not food? You can specify that! Want to specify which procedures you want vs. ones you never want (I will take dialysis, but skip the breathing intubation, check!)

And you most certainly do need to write it down, especially if you do not have next of kin living in town. You need to file the documents with your doctor, and keep a copy for yourself, and provide a copy to your named medical power of attorney.

Ok, I'm probably going out on a limb here, but IF the bill does indeed "mandate" that patients who don't have a Living Will or Durable Medical POA MUST get one, all PROTECTING the Patient's personal wishes, AND the government will pay for it....

Wait, where's the bad part again?

Read the bill yet?

Read how the hospitals and doctors will be fined for a discharged patient that has to be readmitted for ANY reason, which we all know happens. It also defines the "EXCESS READMISSION RATIO".

READ THE BILL PEOPLE:::

Subtitle C—

SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Nope, not good.

Seems clear to me, if you haven't had a "consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:"

This is mandatory if you have not had a consultation last year, or the year before, or the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that you WILL have a consultation.

What part allows for an option? Pick me, pick me, I know, it is an option if you have had a "consultation" within the LAST 5 YEARS.

You don't need a Living Will if you want to be treated medically until the day you die.

You only need a Living Will if you DON'T want to be treated. So, the gov't will pay so you will sign a paper saying you don't want to be treated. Huh. Gee. I wonder if their motivation is your personal wishes or theirs.

Nope, not good.

Seems clear to me, if you haven't had a "consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:"

Nope, not good.

Seems clear to me, if you haven't had a "consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:"

This is mandatory if you have not had a consultation last year, or the year before, or the year before that, or the year before that, or the year before that you WILL have a consultation.

What part allows for an option? Pick me, pick me, I know, it is an option if you have had a "consultation" within the LAST 5 YEARS.

Screening Pap Smear; Screening Pelvic Exam

(nn)(1) The term "screening pap smear" means a diagnostic laboratory test consisting of a routine exfoliative cytology test (Papanicolaou test) provided to a woman for the purpose of early detection of cervical or vaginal cancer and includes a physician's interpretation of the results of the test, if the individual involved has not had such a test during the preceding 2 years, or during the preceding year in the case of a woman described in paragraph (3).

(2) The term "screening pelvic exam" means a pelvic examination provided to a woman if the woman involved has not had such an examination during the preceding 2 years, or during the preceding year in the case of a woman described in paragraph (3), and includes a clinical breast examination.

Prostate Cancer Screening Tests

(oo)(1) The term "prostate cancer screening test" means a test that consists of any (or all) of the procedures described in paragraph (2) provided for the purpose of early detection of prostate cancer to a man over 50 years of age who has not had such a test during the preceding year.

PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO AMEND Section 1861:

(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

Across the Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right

More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen's approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year.

That's a little over-simplified, don't you think? It's hardly as cut and dried as "pull the plug" or Don't pull the plug".

If the blood supply to my brain is cut off for far too long, or other circumstances damage my brain beyond hope of repair, and I am effectively a vegetable with no brain activity, then yes, pull the plug.

If, on the other hand, I go into a deep coma with otherwise observable brain activity, but there is uncertainty as to when or if I might regain consciousness, BUT there is, say, a better than 25% chance I will, even if it might take a year or more, then HELL NO DO NOT PULL THE PLUG! I'll take the year's vacation if I might come back and live another day.

And i could go on and on, but the bottom line is that there are a myriad of circumstances where the "off switch" could be thrown, or care could be withheld, OR given, depending on what YOU feel about each differing situation.

C'MON CJ! I know you're smarter than this. If there's any "death panel" in all of this then THAT PANEL IS YOU.

YOU, not the government, gets to decide, in as much detail as you care to go into, EXACTLY what YOU expect medical care to do OR not do when you are unable to communicate your wishes at the time of crisis. And you can't redefine dictionary words to make it any different.

Sarah Palin is a mother-phreaking-power-hungry-liar-from-he11, as are the winger "activists" who are shoving these obscene lies down the gullets of Americans who don't understand any of this and, frankly, can't.

But Palin and the astroturfers will simply go on screaming "LA LA LA LA NO IT ISN'T NO IT ISN'T!!!!" And the simple folks who honestly believe they are getting "straight talk" from people they trust will continue to believe them.

And our nation will crumble.

Don't be a part of that. Please.

Y'know, city, from where I sit, I would have thought that you were smarter than to assume the good intentions of the government even if the Left is beside itself with joy over getting back control of the Presidency and Congress.

I did not assume that under any previous president, and I am not assuming that of this President. Mr. Obama, being a relative unknown, stated that we could know him by the people he surrounded himself with. Those are his own words. Looking at many of those he has surrounded himself with, I am now questioning not just his good judgment, but also now his intentions.

And if this bill is not all that the opponents fear that it is, why not slow the process. Break the bill into incremental bills. Explain each step, take each step, vote on each step, pass each step? Sorry. This big freakin' push and rush and jam this bill down our throats without reading it is much too flim-flam for my taste.

And for the record, Sarah Palin is an empty-headed, empty power suit. She has a degree in Communications, so in her own head, she is always on camera, standing on her mark, and the stuff she spouts is scripted and the more she talks the more you realize how little she knows.

The Czars this President has appointed, their writings, their philosophies speak for themselves. And you may be sucker enough to fall for the veneer, but you are absolutely right, I am smarter than to do that.

If this bill isn't for the betterment of the people, ceejay, what's it for then? You sound as if you're on the verge of proposing a conspiracy theory.

SHALL does not mean WILL. Got it? Not mandatory.

...AND the government will pay for it....

Wait, where's the bad part again?

Senator Specter was on TV saying they would require people to create a living will before they would be accepted into the healthcare plan.

Ok, I'm probably going out on a limb here, but IF the bill does indeed "mandate" that patients who don't have a Living Will or Durable Medical POA MUST get one, all PROTECTING the Patient's personal wishes, AND the government will pay for it....

Wait, where's the bad part again?

Would you personally stick your kids and grandkids with the bill for your living will?

Are prostrate exams MANDATED every year for men over 50? No. They are an allowable service charge covered under Medicare as long as it has been at least one years since the last exam.


Newt Gingrich, July 2, 2009
http://views.washingtonpost.com/healthcare...t-gingrich.html

Hell yeah. They are going to inherit a bundle anyway. Besides, where you and your ilk are going the money will catch fire in no time so even if you can take it with you, you won't be able to spend it down there.

I love it when people can make sense of all the legal mumbo jumbe in the house bill but, they don't know what the doctor is checking when he shoves his finger up their butt. PROSTRATE means LYING DOWN. PROSTATE PROSTATE PROSTATE[/b] My living will cost me $4 to have notarized. That's it.

so you didn't need an attorney and the form was free? And where did you get the form?

Couldn't agree more, City. If consultations were mandatory (which they are not), you would simply state your wishes to receive aggressive treatment and all available heroic measures until the end of your days.

For those of you adamantly opposed to the measure (and the "offering" of counseling), if your significant other, parent, or child were to be in an auto accident today, and rendered unconscious, how many of you would be able to clearly articulate their specific wishes to their doctors? And what if a spouse told you they didn't/did want to be kept alive if they had significant brain injury, and their parent told the doctors that they had expressed the exact opposite.

The dialogue and written instructions are a very good thing, and it would be interesting to note if bill opponents actually ever had it, and if their families clearly understand their wishes.

Why did you just change the subject? You couldn't answer the other question so you moved on to something else?

Of course they're going to look at readmissions. They should; it's a potential for Medicare abuse. Here's another clue for you all (the walrus was Paul): They've already been flagging readmissions within 24h for review for a long time now. Gasp! Guess what else? Medicare has "Never Events" in place. That happened when Bush was president. That means certain complications are "never" supposed to happen to patients when they're in the hospital (like bedsores) and if they do, Medicare isn't going to foot the bill to pay for them.

Is it getting clearer for you?

My mother had a stroke in 1985. She lay on the floor of her home for 2 days, lost in the apathy that I have since learned in very common among stroke victims. By the time I found her and called an ambulance, there was no possibility of the use of clot busting drugs as treatment.

The left side of her body was paralyzed, but her intellectual facilities were untouched. She was given Heparin to prevent further clots, and after a few days was transferred to a nursing home to begin rehab. I worked with her a few times when I visited, and she began to make some small progress. I was given power of attorney, but was very reluctant to sell her small row home, as the eventual goal, for her and for me, however unrealistic, was for her to recover enough to go home.

Then she suddenly became tired and weak. Transferred back to the hospital, it was discovered that fluid was seeping into her pericardium because of the anti-coagulant. So the Heparin was discontinued, and she had surgery to relieve the pressure which was slowing her heart.

I was there when she came out of surgery, and we had a nice conversation about her sisters from Canada who were coming to visit. But the next day, in the middle of a conversation, she slumped back and, in a child's voice, began whispering "Help...help...help". She had thrown another clot, and another small part of her brain had died.

My mother was a country girl, and although her education never passed 6th grade, she became a voracious reader. But she knew nothing medical technologies, or of advance directives. I knew, or at least had heard of such things, but being young, I had really given it little thought. I forgive myself for not acting in some way by saying that it's hard to make decisions about the death of someone you love. And it's doubly hard when you are watching it happen before your eyes.

No doctor, no nurse, no social worker approached me about it, and perhaps because of denial, it never occurred to me to pursue the topic.

She was transferred back to the nursing home, and I visited nearly every day. Some days she recognized me, but when she did she would remember her life, and whimper and cry that she wanted to see her kitty cat. Other times she seemed lost in some jumble of the past, and mistook me for a friend from childhood.

It was hard.

About 2 weeks after she left the hospital, she was given the grace of having her heart stop in the middle of the night. There is no way of knowing what would have occurred if this had happened in the day, with staff and nurses around. They would have been required to resuscitate. Perhaps her shell would have survived, her heart kept beating, for another month, another year. Respirator, feeding tubes, diaper changes, propping her up during the day to stare without comprehension at the TV.

I heard yesterday that the Senate will be dropping the end of life consultations from the health care bill. They say it's expense, but you know, and I know, that the reason that the provision is being dropped is that it's too hot to handle in the face of unreasoning rhetoric, and unreasoning fear, about "death panels".

So say it. Yeah. Hurray for our side. Look what we've won.

My mother had a stroke in 1985. She lay on the floor of her home for 2 days, lost in the apathy that I have since learned in very common among stroke victims. By the time I found her and called an ambulance, there was no possibility of the use of clot busting drugs as treatment.

The left side of her body was paralyzed, but her intellectual facilities were untouched. She was given Heparin to prevent further clots, and after a few days was transferred to a nursing home to begin rehab. I worked with her a few times when I visited, and she began to make some small progress. I was given power of attorney, but was very reluctant to sell her small row home, as the eventual goal, for her and for me, however unrealistic, was for her to recover enough to go home.

Then she suddenly became tired and weak. Transferred back to the hospital, it was discovered that fluid was seeping into her pericardium because of the anti-coagulant. So the Heparin was discontinued, and she had surgery to relieve the pressure which was slowing her heart.

I was there when she came out of surgery, and we had a nice conversation about her sisters from Canada who were coming to visit. But the next day, in the middle of a conversation, she slumped back and, in a child's voice, began whispering "Help...help...help". She had thrown another clot, and another small part of her brain had died.

My mother was a country girl, and although her education never passed 6th grade, she became a voracious reader. But she knew nothing medical technologies, or of advance directives. I knew, or at least had heard of such things, but being young, I had really given it little thought. I forgive myself for not acting in some way by saying that it's hard to make decisions about the death of someone you love. And it's doubly hard when you are watching it happen before your eyes.

No doctor, no nurse, no social worker approached me about it, and perhaps because of denial, it never occurred to me to pursue the topic.

She was transferred back to the nursing home, and I visited nearly every day. Some days she recognized me, but when she did she would remember her life, and whimper and cry that she wanted to see her kitty cat. Other times she seemed lost in some jumble of the past, and mistook me for a friend from childhood.

It was hard.

About 2 weeks after she left the hospital, she was given the grace of having her heart stop in the middle of the night. There is no way of knowing what would have occurred if this had happened in the day, with staff and nurses around. They would have been required to resuscitate. Perhaps her shell would have survived, her heart kept beating, for another month, another year. Respirator, feeding tubes, diaper changes, propping her up during the day to stare without comprehension at the TV.

I heard yesterday that the Senate will be dropping the end of life consultations from the health care bill. They say it's expense, but you know, and I know, that the reason that the provision is being dropped is that it's too hot to handle in the face of unreasoning rhetoric, and unreasoning fear, about "death panels".

So say it. Yeah. Hurray for our side. Look what we've won.

I heard yesterday that the Senate will be dropping the end of life consultations from the health care bill. They say it's expense, but you know, and I know, that the reason that the provision is being dropped is that it's too hot to handle in the face of unreasoning rhetoric, and unreasoning fear, about "death panels".

So say it. Yeah. Hurray for our side. Look what we've won.

You story is very moving and, more importantly, illustrative as to why end-of-life counseling is important, both for patients and their families.

PHLUCK YOU SARA PALIN! You and yours are killing this country.

For What It's Worth:

Ditch that burnt out hippee crap. watch Soulwax - NY Excuse instead. It is on youtube.

Straight Talk, Part I

The end-of-life myth and the real long-term care stories to be told
By Trudy Lieberman

In mid-July, Betsy McCaughey, identifying herself as a former lieutenant governor of New York state and chair/founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, penned op-eds in two editorially conservative newspapers: The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. The first, published in the Post on July 17, rambled on about people being forced into "qualified" health plans with limited access to specialists and treatments. It sounded scary, but McCaughey didn't tell readers that the term "qualified plans" may mean plans that will offer minimum benefits as protection against being underinsured and potentially bankrupt when illness strikes. That's a good thing.

McCaughey then went on to mention "one troubling provision in the House bill" that, she said, "compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care." She posited that the sessions cover "highly sensitive matters" and that the mandate "invites abuse." Seniors, she said, "could easily be pushed to refuse care."

The day before the Post published another of her op-eds, entitled "Deadly Doctors", McCaughey appeared on former Sen. Fred Thompson's radio show, saying that "Congress would make it mandatory—absolutely require—that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner"—an inaccurate assertion that apparently scared the bejesus out of Thompson's listeners...

Straight Talk, Part I

How nice.....I guess you can expect this from a city dweller.

notveryhow:

I'm so sorry for what you and your mother went through.

Y'know, city, from where I sit, I would have thought that you were smarter than to assume the good intentions of the government even if the Left is beside itself with joy over getting back control of the Presidency and Congress.

This will never happen so long as good, thinking people like yourself waste precious time and "political capital" arguing nonsensical crap like "death panels" to defend an indefensibe position, when in truth you should be arguing that those who put forth this deliberate misdirection seek only to derail all sensible discussion by all parties, and hope to end any real, tangible debate before it ever begins.

Jeebus Kristy, I'm ALL IN FAVOR OF "BABY STEPS" AND "INCREMENTAL MEASURES" AND "MORE VOICES AT THE TABLE!"

It's just that those driving the astroturf machine don't actually want any voices at the table. Or even a table for that matter. Thy just want their hunk of American flesh, right off the bone, while still alive and paying for it.

This is what I argue against. This is what angers me to the point of losing sleep, and genuinely wondering what the future of our Republic looks like if this kind of incredibly calculated manipulation of masses of trusting, innocent and uninformed people can actually cause rifts between members of our society to a degree that seems almost beyond reconciliation.

This is what scares me insofar as being a potential witness to the Death-Of-The-American-Dream. Good people like yourself getting so caught up in the drama of "This isn't the right president" and "That isn't the right wording" to the point that you and SO many others forget that WE ARE THE PEOPLE, and just go on arguing while the rogues take us to the bank.

CJ, as long as Big Money drives the discussion, there isn't one, and we're all ultimately screwed together. Like it or not.

Love,

City

The right wording? <insert hilarious laughter right here> No, no. What you ask of We the People is blind trust. Nope! GWB taught me well that you don't blindly trust anyone but Almighty G-d. Everyone else lies.

If the Dems force an all or nothing on their thousand pages I am taking the "nothing" option.

The right wording? <insert hilarious laughter right here> No, no. What you ask of We the People is blind trust. Nope! GWB taught me well that you don't blindly trust anyone but Almighty G-d. Everyone else lies. If the Dems force an all or nothing on their thousand pages I am taking the "nothing" option. We can always try again next year. If you blindly trust them with the "all", there is no going back to get this right. And it is possible to get this right. But this "fight" is about Barak Obama setting speed records and he doesn't care if he bankrupts and ultimately destroys your "American dream". His goal all along is to reduce us to Proletariat with his intelligentsia elites as the Rulers. And, no. I am not kidding.

So you're ok with the status quo with health care? Nevermind your feelings about Obama - this is about health care. You want health care to continue as is? You are fine with the Bill Frist types putting in laws preventing Americans from going to Canada for cheaper drugs so his family's medical business can profit off our tax dollars? It's ok for Frist to insert himself in family/doctor decisions by making an incorrect video diagnosis to keep Terry Schaivo alive probably because his family would profit from that too? You don't think families deserve to have end of life discussions with their doctors so future Schaivo incidents don't happen? You think it's just fine that insurance companies deny procedures so their shareholders can profit? You don't think the insurance industry needs some competition that would help bring down costs? I'm just trying to get a handle on where you are with health care. All you've said so far is you're scared of Obama which has nothing to do with the issues of health care. What do you think needs to be done about health care?

if he used a little wisdom and slowed this down, and broke down this bill into digestible, understandable portions: Health Insurance/public option, Healthcare itself, Funding, and regulation/caps on charges and on tort reform.

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

In all this back and forth is anybody keeping score?
Who has told more lies?
Barack Obunko or Sarah Palin?

CJ, the problem at this point is that it doesn't matter at what speed changes are brought to the table, or how incremental reforms are, and it certainly makes no difference whether or not any of it is digestible or understandable.

A multi-billion-dollar machine has been turned against the people, and it's specific function is to block digestion and dissuade understanding, at any cost.

We have become so inured to the idea of a real treasonous cabal by the tin-foil-hats shouting "BILDERBERGER! ROTHSCHILD! FED!!!!!!!" that when one raises it's snake-infested head right before us we all but ignore it and continue at each others' throats.

THESE "ASTOTURF" ORGANIZATIONS AREN'T PLAYING "POLITICAL FOOTBALL". THEY ARE PLAYING TAKE THE COUNTRY AND KEEP IT.

I mean, when you have an established, traceable, large organized group that includes Wall Street, Big Health, Big Oil, Big Govt. (Ret.), funded and operated by individuals who are either suspicious of our current form of government or flat-out against it, intent on controlling our democratic process to suit their ends,

well, what exactly do you call that?

"Astroturf" falls a bit short of the mark, I think.

Sedition? More like it.



This is where we should all be setting our sights, because this is where our system is truly broken. We can fix nothing else until we fix that which all else is built upon, or it will simply crumble again and again, and with it our Republic.

Read this post and tell me we aren't being had, by overt acts of sedition in an attempt to subvert our laws and process of government.

And if you agree, start speaking out.

If the Dems force an all or nothing on their thousand pages I am taking the "nothing" option. We can always try again next year. If you blindly trust them with the "all", there is no going back to get this right. And it is possible to get this right.

This isn't about Obama. This is about healthcare and health insurance and it is about getting it right, not just getting it changed. If you read across all the threads, of course I believe the way we do health care needs to be changed!!! But not with a namby-pamby, watered-down, change for the sake of change and to set a land/speed record for the current administration. The issues are all separate issues. So separate the issues and address them. The American people would be on board for incremental changes that are spelled out, so they can understand all the ramifications, and where the funding of that change is spelled out so they know it isn't going to break us! If the Obama Administration keeps ramming this huge, massive omnibus bill down our throats, it is not going to pass. Those in his own party are facing mid-term elections, and they are afraid of this reaction against this bill. Mr. Obama could really be the successful Health Care President if he used a little wisdom and slowed this down, and broke down this bill into digestible, understandable portions: Health Insurance/public option, Healthcare itself, Funding, and regulation/caps on charges and on tort reform.

Plain and simple: If Mr. Obama does not state facts and figures, in black and white, and if he doesn't show where all the money is going to come from, in black and white, this massive, incomprehensible, indecipherable, loosy-goosy, full of estimates bill is not going to pass.

And Democrats entrenching with a "take it or leave it" or "it's this of nothing" are going to end up with nothing.

Decisions, decisions.

Why not? Laws change. That's what we're trying to do right now. If your logic were correct, why would we bother trying to change the status quo. According to you, the status quo is permanent because there's no going back to get it right.

Obama is trying to rush this bill so the status quo doesn't bankrupt us all. You want to wait and wait until every little detail is perfect (which is not 100% predictable anyway) and then try to fix everything.

The house is on fire. Let's open the hydrant and blast it with the firehose now. We'll take care of the smoldering embers when the fire is under control. You're trying to get all the embers in a row before even turning on the water. Wake up, Nero.

This country has been debating health care for 40+ years and you think this is a rush job? Seems to me it's just more stall tactics from conservatives like yourself and the insurance industry just because a "scary" Democratic President wants to get it done. So sad that politics comes before the needs of the country.

This is a rush job on 1000 pages of legislation written in 7 months since Mr. Obama became president.

CJ, you keep going on about how the (still unfinished and un-ratified) bill is "1,000 pages".

The actual pages contain about 1/3 of a page text per page.

SO, if it were a "normal" document, like you or I would write, it would be about 300 pages. Not terribly unwieldy for "sweeping legislation", now, it it?

I mean, I would think that the average Ordinary-Concerned-Middle-Class-American™ would be able to read that.

Have you read it?

Have you read it?

My living will cost me $4 to have notarized. That's it.

a) No, as it isn't "finalized" yet. Meaning it could change a thousand ways still before it comes to a final vote. I have other priorities.

{BEE DAMMIT} I'm busy trying to figure out how to pay my health insurance, the cell phones, teh innernets, and the lights, and the gas, and the taxes, and our food...

Oh, just freaking waaaahhh.... that's us. And most of America, from what I hear. Leave's me with little patience for health care concerns that are "concerned" about "only" making A FEW BILLION DOLLARS in the last quarter.

Heart-breaking, that.

Hell yeah. They are going to inherit a bundle anyway. Besides, where you and your ilk are going the money will catch fire in no time so even if you can take it with you, you won't be able to spend it down there.

That's low compared to what the cost will be after the federal government mandates them.

Great. So we all know what you are against: blood-suckers. Me too.

But you are also all for a bill that you don't even know what it says, and are willing to verbally fight to the death for it. Just swell.

Blind faith is only as good as the object of that faith. Really amazed that you have that kind of faith in politicians. Basically a blank check, and you are fine with them filling it in later.

I despair.

What happened to reincarnation or was that reserved for guys who slander ladies like Sarah Palin?

Many are also against the bill and are willing to verbally fight to the death without even knowing (or understanding) what it says.

It is not blind faith. It is wanting to move forward. Republicans want to do nothing.

You think that slut and liar is a lady? Man I would like to met your daughters if that is the moral standard in your household.

It is blind faith if you have no idea where you are going!!!!

Okay. Now I am beyond despair. Banging my head against a wall!!!!!

You can "move forward" off a cliff, or into a brick wall, or head on into another vehicle. Moving forward without knowing the path is simply ridiculous. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE BILL IS OR HOW IT IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR, BUT BY GOD, YOU ARE ALL FOR IT. Seriously. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Speaking Friday to the second annual GOPAC conference in Chicago, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, seen as a possible Republican 2012 presidential contender, said unhappiness with Obama's efforts would lead to the country back to the GOP fold.

Was that blind faith? How many Republicans read those 415 pages and understood them? So it's OK for Republicans, but now that Democrats are in charge we should take another 6-12 months???

This is a rush job on 1000 pages of legislation written in 7 months since Mr. Obama became president.

Since you are all for it and want the rush job, please make your next post a spreadsheet of where the funding is going to come from, provision by provision.

And while you are at it, your next post should include, section by section, a synopsis of the major provisions of this bill.

Not gonna happen, huh, mam? city? Reverend? Put up or shut up. Have any of you read the bill? I am on page 315. That leaves 700+ pages. And since I can't get a hard copy, it is difficult reading, and finding your place again when you stop to let your eyes recover and then go back to it.

You all are completely in favor of legislation you have not read!!!! Well, you are in good company. Your legislators haven't read it either, Obama hasn't read it either, and they are all for it too and will vote for it. You all collectively astonish me.

Edit to add: For those of you who want to put your money where your mouth is, slate.com has a link where you can download the full text, plus another where there is a section by section summary. Get back to me when you catch up.

So, because Republicans were blind, deaf, and stupid, it is okay for Democrats to be now?

I hate politics. I hate politicians. I hate the games.

And, just so we are clear, you hate what the Republicans did and are blasting them for what they did, but now you are defending the Dems doing exactly the same thing?

And while I am at it, if the Republicans jumped off the Empire State Building, would you? Would you justify the Dems doing it?

You baffle me.

So, because Republicans were blind, deaf, and stupid, it is okay for Democrats to be now?

I hate politics. I hate politicians. I hate the games.

And, just so we are clear, you hate what the Republicans did and are blasting them for what they did, but now you are defending the Dems doing exactly the same thing?

And while I am at it, if the Republicans jumped off the Empire State Building, would you? Would you justify the Dems doing it?

You baffle me.

We spent more than that in Iraq. Why can't we spend that here to fix our problems?

Ceejay, I know how you hate to be called a hypocrite, so am I correct in assuming you have never been in favor of a bill that you haven't read and understood in its entirety? Also, since you haven't finished reading this (unfinished) bill, would you please clarify that you're not against it? You're neither for it nor against it, right? You're still making up your mind. Because it really sounds as if you're against it, and that can't be. You would never take a firm stance for or against anything of which you don't completely understand every minute detail, right?

Just out of curiousity, how do you have so much time to spend on TB? Don't you spend all day, every day, reading every bill that goes before Congress? After all, they're not hard copies, and they're full of legalese, so they're really hard to read, right? Must take you forever.

Oooo! OOOOO!!!! pick me! PICK ME!!!

Um, because certain parties want us to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan and want our health system to stay the way it is, so they can all keep making gigantic obscene piles of money and the Republic be damned?

So let's look at costs of health care reform. Let's assume the cost of health care reform is $1.5 trillion over 10 years. That's $150 billion a year. Newt Gingrich said last month that changes to end-of-life procedures would save medicare $33 billion a year. Now we are down to $117 billion a year or $9.75 billion a month.

We spent more than that in Iraq. Why can't we spend that here to fix our problems?

That was not the point. The fact that you weren't railing against the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug bill is the point, but are now railing against this new (unfinished) bill is the point.

We may not know exactly how this this new plan will be funded, but we are willing to try to figure it out, that's why we're having town hall meetings and debating the issues. You are just trying to quash the bill because it's currently too "loosey-goosey" for your tastes. That's not helping, ceejay. That's not being productive. It's quite the opposite.

Nice smokescreen, Reverend. I am not a legislator, right? And I don't vote on bills. Do you? Do you seriously think that the legislators don't need to read the bills they pass? They didn't read the stimulus bill. They didn't read cap &amp; Trade. They haven't read healthcare reform bill, but you are okay with that? It would be nice if you actually read the posts you leap to comment on. I posted the site where the bill in its entirety is available. And I clearly stated that also available is an item by item summary. I have read the summary. Am on pg. 500-something on the bill. Have you read the bill? The summary? And you obviously don't thing the bill is worth taking the time to actually read, yet you are in full support of it? I thought you were the King of Logic. Explain the logic to me. I have repeatedly said, let's break this down into understandable chunks, be transparent with the American people, and vote chunk by chunk. And since Mr. Obama promised transparency, and promised to post bills, and promised not to rush bills through without the people understanding and commenting, just more promises broken. Seems pretty illogical to me to ramp up criticism and mockery of people who are reading the legislation. Yeah. God forbid we should actually understand what is going on with one of the most important issues of our lifetime, and our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes. Do you have kids who will be paying for this? Still don't care to read it? &lt; HILARIOUS LAUGHTER!!!!!&gt; Guess which &quot;certain party&quot; is keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!! Too funny, city! Too much scotch again? Another broken promise from Mr. Obama. That must be a huge bummer for you, as Mr. &quot;Bring our troops home&quot; instead ramps up Afghanistan and announces how many troops he will leave behind in Iraq if he EVER gets ANY of them out of there!!! Weren't those the positions he totally mocked and trashed McCain for? And now he has adopted them. Sucks, doesn't it? Hey, wait a minute! You guys keep saying you aren't in favor of Death Panels and rationing and killing our grandmothers! So, which is it, lee??? Excuse me. I wasn't on TB then. You have no idea how much railing I did about that now do you? &quot;Figure it out later&quot;? That equals a blank check. No. Show me the money. Then we decide what we can afford and what has to wait until the economy recovers a little more. We need hard and fast money facts. I am not willing to keep heaping up deficits and China IOUs and a ton of debt on my progeny. Surprised that you are.

Hey, wait a minute! You guys keep saying you aren't in favor of Death Panels and rationing and killing our grandmothers! So, which is it, lee???

You think that slut and liar is a lady? Man I would like to met your daughters if that is the moral standard in your household.

You can "move forward" off a cliff, or into a brick wall, or head on into another vehicle. Moving forward without knowing the path is simply ridiculous. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE BILL IS OR HOW IT IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR, BUT BY GOD, YOU ARE ALL FOR IT. Seriously. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Guess which "certain party" is keeping us in Iraq and Afghanistan!!!! Too funny, city! Too much scotch again?

was this comment really necessary?

Everyone believes end-of-life planning will result in more efficient health care. It will prevent costly medical procedures that are actually against the wishes of the patient.

If apology is necessary, I will gladly give it. city commented on another thread about a crappy day, and scotch, and it actually improving something. I meant it as a joke. Sorry, city -- and why?!

Nice smokescreen, Reverend. I am not a legislator, right? And I don't vote on bills. Do you? Do you seriously think that the legislators don't need to read the bills they pass? They didn't read the stimulus bill. They didn't read cap & Trade. They haven't read healthcare reform bill, but you are okay with that?

It would be nice if you actually read the posts you leap to comment on. I posted the site where the bill in its entirety is available. And I clearly stated that also available is an item by item summary. I have read the summary. Am on pg. 500-something on the bill.

Have you read the bill? The summary? And you obviously don't thing the bill is worth taking the time to actually read, yet you are in full support of it? I thought you were the King of Logic. Explain the logic to me.

I have repeatedly said, let's break this down into understandable chunks, be transparent with the American people, and vote chunk by chunk. And since Mr. Obama promised transparency, and promised to post bills, and promised not to rush bills through without the people understanding and commenting, just more promises broken.

Seems pretty illogical to me to ramp up criticism and mockery of people who are reading the legislation. Yeah. God forbid we should actually understand what is going on with one of the most important issues of our lifetime, and our children's and grandchildren's lifetimes. Do you have kids who will be paying for this? Still don't care to read it?

Excuse me. I wasn't on TB then. You have no idea how much railing I did about that now do you?

I stopped smoking a long time ago.

You're overgeneralizing. To say "they didn't read the bills" is not at all accurate.

Well, it's safe to say I'm more logical than you. How can you ask me if I read the bill and then accuse me of not believing the bill is worth taking the time to read in the next sentence? And when did I state that I am in full support of it? I'm simply pointing out how you wish to stop it, even though you haven't finished reading it, by your own admission. You're lambasting the supporters of health care reform by accusing them of not knowing what they're supporting, while you're fighting the reform without knowing what you're fighting. That's called hypocrisy whether you want to admit it or not. The only thing you really seem to have a legitimate argument against is a timeframe. And I haven't heard of any deadlines being laid upon the passage of this bill. Yes, some are trying to move quickly, but I believe it's because they think we can't afford to wait. They may be right.

I'm not criticizing you for reading the bill. I'm mocking you because I believe you are just seeking a failure by this administration so you can say I told you so. You're not interested in helping. Your interests are in feeling right at the expense of others. You're reading the bill looking for ways to kill it, not improve it.



I guess not. But I have a pretty good idea.

Your "logic" has badly failed you, Reverend. I have never fought the bill. You have seen no comment from me disparaging portions of this or any bill.

I have fought the time schedule. I wonder why all of you who don't even know what's in the bill find that so offensive? And I wonder why all the blind faith?

I have continually said that healthcare reform needs to be done right. I have continually urged full disclosure, full fiscal responsibility, and full transparent education of the American people. I wonder by you don't want that?

Your accusations are completely illogical. If I was "looking for ways to kill it", I'd be out at town hall meetings making a a scene because I wouldn't care what the bill said. It is people like you, who don't even know the details, have no idea the finances of it, but are rabid in favor of passing just any old thing, and who attack anyone who isn't as reckless as you who are going to cause the demise of healthcare reform. You are scaring people. And those scared people are impacting their Democratic congresspersons who face re-election in the mid-terms. And you can't even see that all that is needed is time and transparency and a financial plan. Because the Democrats won't give any of those three, healthcare reform is doomed. But you just keep being the blind trying to lead the blind.

Well maybe palin's lies weren't too far streched.

It's been removed from discussions - off the table.

Palin lied? Death panels died. I could get into this protesting stuff if I got paid scale wages and had all that paid time off.

@Ceejay

I recall a discussion with you about the Senate cloture rule about a week ago. You were criticizing Obama and the Democrats for not just using their numbers to force this bill through, and I was explaining about the necessity of having that magic number of 60 in the Senate, and thus the need to bring the Blue Dogs on board.

For you to now criticize Obama and the Democrats for being in too much of a hurry to pass this bill, and thus responsible for it's eventual demise since they are scaring the American people with their hurry strikes me as just a tad inconsistent.

Because you and the Reverend are completely partisan in your positions, everyone becomes the enemy who doesn't lock step with you.

Step back. Think this through. And use some logic.

Mr. Obama had the POTENTIAL power to put anything he wanted in place because his party holds political power. They have the Presidency, both houses of Congress. In theory, whatever he wanted, he should have been able to get through. The Senate is even filibuster-proof.

But Mr. Obama failed on the three levels I have been trying, to no avail, to communicate. Transparency: the American people and thinking Democrats in Congress wanted details, including detailed facts on how to pay for all of this.

Timing: the big push, big rush, "just sign it, you can read it later".

And communication: tell us clearly what this means to individual Americans. Spell it out. Every speech has been a moving speech. But all hype and no details. And that scared members of his own party.

This was so badly muffed by the President and his own party. All they had to do was take it easy. And explain. And spell it out. First, within their own party. Because if every Dem was on board, they could have gotten it done. But then give the facts and the figures to the American people. Facts and figures speak for themselves. Instead, just like on TB, it became "just do it". And any questioning of what the Bills are actually about and how they would be paid for became accusations like the Reverend made. Personal. "You just want to kill it". All or nothing. No discussion.

You should be happy that people are questioning the proposals, not seeing the questioning as a reason to deny the (unfinished) bill.

Your way off base here, ceejay. And you're not discussing anything. You're the one saying "all or nothing." Frankly, I think you prefer it that way. Then you can gladly say "nothing."

What are you smoking tonight, Reverend??? Seriously. I question the proposals and you have bashed me for two lengthy posts! I am the one happy that people are questioning, and I am questioning, looking for explanations, and you are the one making ridiculous accusations about me wanting to kill the bill because I dare to ask questions!!!!

You, sir, are the one saying pass it and we will figure out the details and the money later. In a pig's ear!!!

And your attitudes toward anyone who dares to question are the reason Mr. Obama and his bill are going down in flames. Americans don't like to be told to shut up and do as we are told. And that includes you. You are fine with telling other people to shut up and when they don't you attribute motivation to them. Just like the Democrats. And if you can't see that they are completely mishandling this situation, and so are you, then sit back and watch as you all bring this effort crashing to the ground.

But you aren't questioning anything specific. You just keep overgeneralizing. You aren't denouncing anything the Conservatives are saying about the proposals, giving their outlandish rhetoric your silent approval. You're happy about people asking questions because you attribute those questions to this (unfinished) bill going down in flames.

You've read over 500 pages of this bill by now, right? So how about debating some specifics?

Please provide a quote on this. You can't because it doesn't exist. I have never said pass it now, figure it out later. I provided my opinion on why some people wish to push this through quickly, but that is all.

If you asked legitimate questions, I wouldn't have to criticize them. And as much as you love to play the victim, I have never told you or anyone else here to shut up. Keep making up things if it makes you feel better, but don't expect rational people to accept it.

Sure hope you watched your buddy Keith Olbermann tonight. Because when Olbermann makes the same statements as your archnemesis Conservative on TB about Mr. Obama mishandling healthcare reform, and all his guests, from Ariana Huffington to Lawrence O'Donnell agree, and make the same statements that I have made, you might get rid of your kneejerk "if she says it, it's got to be wrong, cuz she's <gasp> a Conservative <spit>.

And I see you have now made yourself the judge of which questions are "legitimate". <Don't wait for me to curtsy and kiss your ring>

How many pages have you read? Shall I wait until you catch up? I am mid-700s. And Mr. Obama is dropping the only portions that would actually "reform" healthcare. You guys are blowing this big-time going for the throats of anyone who dares to question!

I never watch Olberman or any of the other talking heads. I read my news; I don't watch it. 700 hundred pages in and you haven't asked one specific question yet. That's what I meant when I said you haven't asked any legitimate questions. And you're not my nemesis ceejay. I don't really care about you at all. I respond to more of your posts than many others on TB because, well... when people seem smart, but say something stupid, I point it out to them. But when people who seem stupid say something stupid... what good is a response? Perhaps you should see my responses to you as a compliment. I'm not saying you are smart. You just seem smart. I guess I just haven't given up on you, yet.

Interesting theory, if only disingenuous Conservatives didn't use scare tactics, lies and confusion to muddy the waters and hinder real communication. Death Panels? Really? It's such a ridiculous notion that it doesn't even deserve a response, yet enough gullible Americans were swayed by this Conservative rhetoric that responding to it became

Then tell me rev, why was it removed? Certainly not because there was something to it, naw, just lies and scare tactics.

you haven't demonstrated any understanding beyond the political aspects, either

Pompous: (adj.) Characterized by an exaggerated show of dignity or self-importance; pretentious. Bombastic or self-important in speech or manner.

Can't imagine why that word just popped into my head after reading the last post.

Thought of any specific questions, yet?

Lots of them. I asked them of Sen. Specter's staff and Sen. Casey's staff, and Pitt's office.

I don't waste them on people who haven't read the bill. And I asked that question multiple times. You never answered that you had read the bill.

I also don't engage in discussion with pompous egomaniac's. Find yourself another patsy.

Besides, I've asked you plenty of questions that you don't answer.

Winners never quit, ceejay. Besides, I've asked you plenty of questions that you don't answer.

Why not just ask the question, cite the source, and start a real discussion?
(That's a rhetorical question; I know the answer.)

All they had to do was take it easy. And explain. And spell it out. First, within their own party. Because if every Dem was on board, they could have gotten it done. But then give the facts and the figures to the American people. Facts and figures speak for themselves.

Really? So, you don't think all those people bussed in from far and wide with pre-programmed slogans and signs stopped anyone from 'splaining it?

I mean, many of those folks running the town halls were there to explain facts and figures, but gee, they never got to because some birfer from Minnesota had to monologue.

Take it easy indeed. Take a step back and look at who is really trying to operate your world. And mine too, by the way. One could even say that it's our world. At least on the books.

I've heard a rumor that we're in this together. Could prove true.

Really? So, you don't think all those people bussed in from far and wide with pre-programmed slogans and signs stopped anyone from 'splaining it?

I mean, many of those folks running the town halls were there to explain facts and figures, but gee, they never got to because some birfer from Minnesota had to monologue.

Take it easy indeed. Take a step back and look at who is really trying to operate your world. And mine too, by the way. One could even say that it's our world. At least on the books.

I've heard a rumor that we're in this together. Could prove true.

Have you read the bill?

I have done something that NOT ONE CONGRESS PERSON has admitted to. I have read the bill.

There has been ample time to explain to America what this bill does/does not do. At least 14 times that I am personally aware of.

Not one explaination was offered. Basic reason for no explaination - NO ONE has any clue what is in the bill other than the piece they put forth.

The reason the "end-of-life" section is being stricken is not because it wouldn't have happened, it's because it cannot be explained because of the lack of specificity.

Conversely, if the health care plan had been in effect in July, Michael Jackson would still be alive. The government run healthcare would have denied the xtra costs of the drugs to keep the 50 year old alive and he wouldn't have been able to overdose
(That last paragraph is sarcasm)

The reason the "end-of-life" section is being stricken is not because it wouldn't have happened, it's because it cannot be explained because of the lack of specificity.

No. It is because one person "mis-interpreted" what it did and wrote an op-ed, which was promoted by opponents to the point that the public became opposed to something they actually think is a good idea.

How do you "misinterpret" something written in such nebulous terms that it can be whatever any given administration wants it to be at the time they run the show?

The language in the bill is loosy-goosy because they want it to be.

I was referring specifically to the "death panel" portion.

How many bills have you read before this one? Most are nebulous/legalese written by lawyers/lobbyists. As a result, their interpretation often ends up in court.

Past administrations have interpreted existing laws and the Constitution to suit their needs, so that is nothing new.

Most of this furore is above my head(different ways of thinking)but the &quot;Death Panel&quot; portion was on the face of it so stupid it should have been ignored. The instigator of this appeared on the Daily Show and said it was not her words and JS it must have been lost in translation to Alaskan.(not shown on the American version, shown on the British one) Click onto Daily show web site and watch the Betsy McCaughey interview if you missed it.

So, grieker, what did you think of the Health Choices Commissioner concept? Did you happen to note the number of times the word "authority" was used? Authority to set up the standards? Authority to expand this lumbering bureaucracy at will? Sole contracting authority? Did you love that he is an appointee? But since it is an independent executive branch agency, once again, no Congressional confirmation of this Czar?

How did you like his authority, sole authority, to terminate State exchanges if they don't measure up to his standards? So much for State's rights, huh?

Now, does all of that mean that this key person in a key position of unique power is going to change with every change of administration???

And, not to rush things, but how did you like the 3 tiers of coverage? Basic, enhanced, and premium? (sec. 123) I don't know about you, but I was expecting ... you know ... equality?

But the best part: did you like running across the provision in sec. 203 for a 4th tier? "Premium Plus".

Glad someone has finally read the bill, because it really is an exercise in futility to "discuss" things with people who have no idea what you are talking about, no idea what they are talking about, but think so much of themselves and their vast intellect that they don't need to actually know anything before they think they know everything.

You're a real piece of work, ceejay.

You won't discuss any specifics of the (unfinished) bill with someone unless they've proven they've read it and understand as much of it as you claim to. Of course, "proven" in Grieker's case just means saying so. Then you spout off a short list of things in the (unfinished) bill in an attempt to be specific, yet you've still not started any discussion. You still aren't debating anything. Grieker didn't even answer you! You ask, "what did you think of (blah blah blah)?" but that was only to prove to others that you've read it, as if we don't believe you.

By your logic, the elected leaders holding the town hall meetings shouldn't bother talking to their constituents on these issues until they've proven they know what they are talking about.

And you called me pompous.

It's quite easy to discuss these issues, if you're willing, even with someone who has not read the (unfinished) bill. Just cut and paste the sections you're referring to or cite the link to the pdf and cite the section. You did it with Grieker. I wonder why you're not willing to do the same with someone who doesn't share the same views as yours? (That's another rhetorical question.)

Discuss a piece of legislation with someone who hasn't read that piece of legislation? Don't be silly.

And you expect me to cut and paste sections for you???? Kiss off. I listed the sections. Add "lazy" to "pompous" and we will flesh out just who you are, Reverend. Grieker read the bill, that's the only reason I posted preliminary concerns. And the issues I raised are valid issues.

Anyone who thinks they know everything already without even investigating it, reading, learning, is not worth engaging with. Sorry. I am not playing games with someone so self-important that he regularly feels the need to chastise me, and from his lofty pedestal sets himself in judgment of other's intelligence. You have deemed me unworthy. Why the long delayed comeback to me now? Run out of flies to pull the wings off? I have got zero masochistic tendencies. I discuss issues. With people willing to educate themselves about issues.

Jon Stewart is not America's "most trusted news anchor" for nothing.

not

news anchor

Discuss a piece of legislation with someone who hasn't read that piece of legislation? Don't be silly.

And you expect me to cut and paste sections for you???? Kiss off. I listed the sections. Add "lazy" to "pompous" and we will flesh out just who you are, Reverend. Grieker read the bill, that's the only reason I posted preliminary concerns. And the issues I raised are valid issues.

Anyone who thinks they know everything already without even investigating it, reading, learning, is not worth engaging with. Sorry. I am not playing games with someone so self-important that he regularly feels the need to chastise me, and from his lofty pedestal sets himself in judgment of other's intelligence. You have deemed me unworthy. Why the long delayed comeback to me now? Run out of flies to pull the wings off? I have got zero masochistic tendencies. I discuss issues. With people willing to educate themselves about issues.

Jon Stewart is America's "most trusted "

Boy, you can dish it out.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. (And no, I'm not calling you a goose)

If you will kindly note post #125, I can also take it. And have taken a lot worse from this poster.

But when a poster announces from his lofty, exalted place on high that he flatly doesn't care about another poster and demeans the whole board, says you only "seem" smart? Everything that comes after statements of pomposity and ego like that make interaction an exercise in masochism. Not my thing. He can pull the wings off other flies. I won't respond to that person again.

True discussion takes place among equals with some level of respect for each other. For too many posters on TB this is a hunting ground where people are looking for fights because it gives them a chance to beat people to a bloodly pulp verbally. It's where they take out their pent-up aggression. Not with me. Not any more.

True discussion takes place among equals with some level of respect for each other. For too many posters on TB this is a hunting ground where people are looking for fights because it gives them a chance to beat people to a bloodly pulp verbally. It's where they take out their pent-up aggression. Not with me. Not any more.

Very thoughtful explanation of end-of-life care by (Dr.) Charles Krauthammer in yesterday's paper. He even made a reasonable case against having the government compensate doctors for having a discussion with patients on this issue, but that was not the primary intent of the piece.

What state does he live in?

I think he still lives in Massachusetts but I'm not 100% sure. I know that he started in New York but spent more of his life in Mass. so I think he would consider his real roots in Mass. If I'm wrong I'm sure that someone will educate me so I have the correct information.

Social Security shrinks
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER/Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON — Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.

The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won’t be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn’t happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.

By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

Here is another Obama fiasco. So now we retired people [who worked very hard for very many years], are going to get less and pay out more. Some folks cannot make ends meet now! What are they going to do when their health care cost goes up and they do not even get a COLA to pay for the increase? If Obama cannot stabilize the Medicare system, how can we trust him with universal health care? So, Obama is NOT going to kill off the elderly by denial of medical services. Nope, Obama will just have them freeze to death and starve to death.

Very thoughtful explanation of end-of-life care by (Dr.) Charles Krauthammer in yesterday's paper. He even made a reasonable case against having the government compensate doctors for having a discussion with patients on this issue, but that was not the primary intent of the piece.

What state does he live in?

And if I am totally out of it, my family will decide

SS cost of living increases are based on inflation. No inflation, no increase. But the big story is that you are not only defending a successful socialist program, you are whining that you don't get even more of the socialist handout. OMGosh that is hysterical. You made yourself look the fool in order to try and score points against Obama. Now isn't socialism great????

I too read Krauthammer on Sunday. I often find him quite shrill and ideological, so I was pleasantly surprised.

He makes a rather odd point that , if you're in ICU at deaths door, the doctor will ask you what care you want as if no one knew that. I doubt anyone is thinking that once you sign a living will, even if conscious and coherent, you will no longer be given a choice. Wonders me.

He then writes:



Now I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. Does anyone know? Just how binding is a living will? I have one to spare my family the agony of having to decide, or at the very least to make it at least clear what my wishes are, to spare them of the responsibility of letting Dad die. Not a burden I want to lay on my son.

I was part of a care team for someone who was dying of metastasized liver cancer. He was at the end and very, very sick. He was only intermittently conscious and could no longer speak. Since I was delivering care, I was in the discussion with Hospice (God bless those people). One of this man's sons asked, "When do we call the ambulance". He did not want to let go and let his father die, even though there was nothing that could be done.

That is not a position that I want my family to be in. To the best of my ability, I want to take that burden from them.

Now I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know. Does anyone know? Just how binding is a living will? I have one to spare my family the agony of having to decide, or at the very least to make it at least clear what my wishes are, to spare them of the responsibility of letting Dad die. Not a burden I want to lay on my son.

I was part of a care team for someone who was dying of metastasized liver cancer. He was at the end and very, very sick. He was only intermittently conscious and could no longer speak. Since I was delivering care, I was in the discussion with Hospice (God bless those people). One of this man's sons asked, "When do we call the ambulance". He did not want to let go and let his father die, even though there was nothing that could be done.

That is not a position that I want my family to be in. To the best of my ability, I want to take that burden from them.

Dont think you understand how the word &quot;not&quot; can be used in basic English. EDIT EDIT SORRY. I tried to quote the whole of the post, what little that was shown quoted should not be taken to be my reply, but the whole of grieker post.

Stewart won in an online poll conducted by time. This is nothing new. In the past 4 years, he has regularly finished close to even with Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric and even Tom Brokaw.

Stewart won in an online poll conducted by time. This is nothing new. In the past 4 years, he has regularly finished close to even with Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric and even Tom Brokaw.

You are aware, unlike some, that he is not a news anchor, right? He like Rush, Hannity are entertainers.

You are aware, unlike some, that he is not a news anchor, right? He like Rush, Hannity are entertainers.

If Hannity is an entertainer, he shouldn't be on a network called Fox NEWS. At the very least, he should not claim to be fair and balanced.

At least Stewart and co. have the merit to bill themselves as the best fake news. Sadly, The Daily Show often contains more real news than either Fox or MSNBC, which both claim to be real news networks.

On a side note, I believe Stewart continually ranks high as a trusted news source because many Americans like to hear bad news with a little humor. It makes it a little easier to swallow. The "real" news networks tend to make bad news worse.